"When you strike at a king, you must kill him"

[tibbiit]

"When you strike at a king, you must kill him"- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Beware lest in your anxiety to avoid war you obtain a master." -Demosthenes

Get it right this time Dems!...
The right-wing must be vanquished/killed (metaphoric) by exposure of the truth of what they have been up to. The american people need be educated on what has been covered up. If we take back congress 2006... and then on to 2008... none of that burying the truth shit in hopes of bi-partisan cooperation! (I don't trust the Dem's to not go all pussy on this... you guys just watch, they have the propensity of caving in Victory!)

The right-wing understands the idea of king killing.
We MUST expose Bush-co and House/Senate re-pugs.

This emerson quote MUST be in the for-front of any victory we gain.
tib

[Vincardog]

1. Right you are tibbiit. The first thing we must do is undo the illegal

acts of the Mis-administration. Then let the hearing begin. Let their Dirty underwear be on full public display every day from now on. Make the Kool Aid drinkers as sick of the illegal immoral unconstitutional acts as we are.

[blm]

2. Here's the perfect article that backs you up

Support the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party.


http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0511-29.htm


Published on Thursday, May 11, 2006 by Consortium News
Hey Democrats, Truth Matters!
by Robert Parry

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

>>>>>>>>> MUCH MORE AT LINK

[tibbiit]

5. Excellent commondreams article... (which may be where I got the quote?)

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”
....

Yes this is the point.
Clinton should have killed Bush I off, exposed Iran Contra, and all the other dirty dealings.
As an example... most people believe Clinton was in office when Gary Weaver's family were killed! And Black Hawk Down... all set up by Bush I.


I dont trust our "leaders" to go for Bush-co jugular even TODAY! after all this crap! Look how long it took Kerry to go after Swiftboaters!
errgh...
Historically speaking I am afraid we are in for a big disapointment even if we win back our majority. Those guys (pacifier dems) will all wimp out except for a few like the Congressional Black Caucus (and a few others Kucinich, Feingold etc) who imo should be given hero's badges for their voices thru the long dark winter of Bush.

Imo, Biden, Liberman, Feinstein etc will all want to be "healers", for the good of the country... and we will all be mighty pissed, yet marginalized for our views. We got to stay on the wafflers.
tib

[blm]

7. Go to DU's Research Forum

You'll find that Kerry did counter the swifts in a timely way, but media would not cover his speech attacking them or even give it mainstream coverage. The Research Forum has a thread that chrnicles all the actions taken. You'll be shocked at how complicit the media was with the swifts.

[AX10]

3. kick

[tives12]

4. Taking light taps at the king won't kill him.

Nor will not swinging at all.

[tibbiit]

6. Indeed

tib